Mid-Monthly 1:7

The 2006 Elections at 22,000 miles
Maybe that’s not quite the right number--I'm thinking of the Lagrangian point in which a stationary orbit is achieved without need for braking or acceleration-- but that is what I’m aiming for. There’s still a long way until Election Day, with a lot of tactical bobs and weaves yet to come, but I’m trying to achieve a stable perspective on a strategy which can get us through this year without tears.

So, let me attempt to be clear: I would love for the Democrats to defeat the Bushite forces and gain control of one or both of the Houses of Congress. I even think we should make the effort—if it were to happen somehow, the impact would indeed be massive. I just don’t think we will succeed, so I don’t think we should build up our expectations. Gaining some seats without getting control of either House will be a good result; it probably does not justify an all-out effort in terms of emotions or resources.

I don’t buy the conventional wisdom of the moment that the House of Representatives is somehow more likely than the Senate as a target for Democratic takeover. There are different problems in each case—districting is rigged for incumbents in the House, the math is stacked in favor of the Republicans in the Senate. I think that discerning participants in our electoral charade should try to identify close races in the House in their neighbourhoods, getting behind the candidates where Dems have a chance to gain. Similarly, in the Senate, where there are lots of targets of opportunity, you may also have a good chance to support actively an anti-Bushite candidate in your state or a neighboring one who has a shot of winning.

At 23,000 miles, it’s easy to see that the Republicans will look to blunt the Democrats’ hopes for a national referendum on the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule by playing the Scare Card from their tarot deck (see, it’s not “terra”, it’s “tarot”). The real danger for the Republicans is if the electorate ever becomes focused on the legislative shortcomings of this Congressional session: phony “Gay Waving” and “Flag Marriage” amendments didn’t do the trick for anyone, even the Red Meat-eaters. This Tarot Scare Card approach has much more promise in neutralizing the Democrats’ campaign and reducing the game to locally-driven outcomes; after all, everyone should know that is how these elections get decided, anyway (even in 1994, it was so).

The stakes are not as high in the state level elections, but the probabilities of victory are much higher. The Republicans hold a 28-22 lead in governorships now, and the odds are good that the Democrats can reverse that, or do even better (even without winning California from Schwarzenegger). About ¾ of states have gubernatorial elections this year. There are a couple of solidly favored Democratic pickups, such as New York and Arkansas. About 20 races have clear favorites for re-election, or from the incumbent’s party, half of them from each party.

The key fact is that there are an incredible number of races “too close to call” (11 in the CQ analysis, 9 in the Times’), and most of those deadlocked races have Republican incumbents. These races will be determined by turnout, local issues, and tactical blunders, and so it is reasonable to expect about half of those close ones will fall each way. The numbers this way fall out with about 27-28 Democratic governors emerging from the elections.

Having a majority of governors doesn’t buy the Democrats anything directly in terms of national power, but it will have subtly positive effects. It will tend to undermine the notion that the Republicans are the natural governing party; coupled with (equally likely) parallel victory in state legislatures, it will set the stage for improvements in the next redistricting after 2010 (or at least to block attempts for gerrymandering additional seats in favor of the Republicans). Again, the recommendation here is to back local candidates who have a chance to defeat Bushites.

These judgments add up to an endorsement of Dean’s DNC strategy for 2006: build up strength in the states, don’t waste all the resources in a futile attempt to get control of Congress. In essence, give up some of that 20% chance of winning control of a house of Congress in favor of improving the odds for the Presidential race in 2008. I almost hate to say it, as I am no Deaniac, but it’s so. Yes, DNC has been on my gift list this year, but I prefer advocating direct contributions to local candidates over the centralized placement of political operatives in, say, Idaho. My feeling is that, if there are in fact any Idahoans who want a strong Democratic party organization in their state, they are the ones who should organize it.

Israel-Hezbollah Battle in the Spin Zone

The claims ring out from both sides as the ceasefire takes hold: “We won!” “No, we did!” It seems very clear to me, that if the other side is still in the field to dispute it, you have not “won” the war. So, the question is, which side has lost more?

Hezbollah seems to believe that it can still make the claim to have “won the war, after losing every battle” (once again, “Idiot Wind”). I think it more realistic to think that they can still win the peace. Militarily, they were not wiped out; when you’re facing the Israelis, that’s certainly something. Their assets have been “degraded”, though; who knows how many fighters, but certainly a lot of their fighters’ dependents. Their ability to guarantee protection to civilians in South Lebanon, and their claim to being the force that can maintain territorial control of the region, won back from the Israelis after prolonged struggle in the ‘80’s—each of those has taken a severe hit.

The best news for Hezbollah is that they seem to have the field all to themselves in rebuilding the heavily-damaged region, with lucre from the deep, oily pockets of Iran greasing the effort. This makes little sense to me: the U.N., the French, even the Americans should be looking to get their names on some of the rebuilding projects, preferably by using rival Shiite groups: Hezbollah comes in for some heavy condemnation from those who are not their partisans, for bringing on the wrath of Israel. If one were serious about the propaganda war, now would be the time to do some undermining. If that won’t do—and I understand the USA, France, and U.N. insisting on working only through national actors, even if I don’t agree with it—then through foreign aid to the government of Lebanon. I think this post-Syria-client-state version of the country can’t be considered a “failed state” yet, as it hasn’t had enough time, nor any enthusiastic sponsorship.

Hezbollah could hold a reasonable aspiration to co-opt the military of Lebanon and exercise its thirst for power through it, but I don’t believe they will do it. It looks to me instead a lot like the old I.R.A.: basically an armed force for ethnic nationalism that will never have a clue how to govern, either leading a state or within a coalition of parties within one. And, if you know my point of view by now, you will know I have no truck with nationalism of any kind (much less the dysfunctional ethnic kind), but I do recognize that ethnic aspirations must be given their opportunity to breathe in and out their noxious gases, or something even more evil-smelling will emerge.

Now, as for Israel: the nation, its military, and the civilians of the northern part of the country have all suffered some damage, but (except for a few unlucky civilians and soldiers), nothing fatal. More like a hit to their prestige, a p.r. loss (if they were still in the battlefield on that front, which is doubtful), and a reminder of their insecurity. After all, it is correct that one lost war, even one lost battle, could spell the end for the Israeli state.

On the other hand, I think there has been a fatal blow inflicted on the hopes for sustained government behind Ehud Olmert, who sought to replace Sharon as the natural, centrist leader of Israel. The good news is that the philosophy of Sharon’s Wall has been routed: in a world in which Israel’s foes can have medium-range missiles, there is no safety behind a mere wall. Hopefully, recognition of this weakness will inspire some thinking more creative than “let’s build a wall and keep them out”.

The bad news is that the immediate benefactors of Israel’s less-than-totally-successful (i.e., failed) battlefield offensive seem to be the crowd opposed to making peace, Netanyahu and the like. They seem to feel that the fact that the Palestinians and their allies rejected the armed retreat which was Israeli unilateral withdrawal as real peacemaking should embolden their advocacy of…what? Increased settlement in the West Bank? Bushite pre-emptive strikes on Syria and Iran? Going back into Gaza? I don’t know, but it does seem that the downward spiral in Israeli political confidence is going to continue, and that means nothing good. The people in Israel seem bewildered by this new regional power alignment and are looking for a man on horseback. The forces for peace there took a double knock and look demoralized, as first they had to surrender the high ground and get behind the retaliatory offensive in Lebanon (as a practical response), and then they can’t even feel vindicated by the outcome.

Rating System for Rock ‘n Roll

I’ve been feeling the need these days to compare and rate rock bands over the decades, trying to come up with favorites, and looking for a shorthand approach to evaluation. I’ve decided to use a measurement approach that uses a four-point scale, like the standard grading system, and that looks at four dimensions of a band’s quality: the music, the lyrics, the vocals, and the production values.

The approach I’m advocating is a music consumer’s one, not one that would be used by professional musicians, or even by the critics who’ve been on their own little trip for about 20 years now. So, you won’t hear me talking about the “chops”, “hooks,” or “riffs”—these are insider terms that distance one from the experience of the music itself

The rating levels are pretty versatile; the general approach would be to look at the consistency and quality of the work of the rock entity (the band, along with the producers, or the soloist, with their backup band and producers) as a whole. For some long-lived groups, like Dylan, the Beatles,* the Stones, or U2, though, it would make more sense to talk about their work over a period of a few years. It could also make sense to rate an individual release—an album, or even a single song.

The rating system, clearly, wouldn’t apply to something like classical music, or even to jazz unless there are vocals. I think of rock without vocals as basically a novelty tune or act—it’s not the full deal and wouldn’t rate so highly, justifiably. It could be applied to something like country music, or blues.

So, the ratings and how I’d interpret them:
4.0 (A+)-- Consistently outstanding
3.7 (A)—Consistently strong, or strong and occasionally outstanding.
3.3 (A-)—Strong
3.0 (B+)—Very good
2.7 (B)—Good, and occasionally better than just good
2.3 (B-)—Just good enough
2.0 (C+)—Adequate, or sometimes good and sometimes awful
1.7 (C)—Not really good enough
1.0 (D+)—Bad
0.5 (F)—Varies between bad and truly disgusting
0.0 (F-)—Consistently disgusting

My tastes in lyrics are for some verbal wit, some punching power, and I look for effectiveness in overall effect. All things being equal, I prefer there to be some meaning of social import, rather than just expressing an emotion or telling a story. This may sound like a preference for that critically-disdained qualities, being “didactic,” or “preachy”, but I think we’ve got a lot to learn, and if the only way we can learn is through our art (i.e., if we can’t think on our own, or read and learn from it, or even absorb something from the TV or computer screen), then there has to be something in our art worth learning.

When it comes to the vocals, I like a combination of some musical quality and range, mixed with some less-pure emotional quality in the delivery. Gut-bucket without any melody doesn’t do it for me; neither does the sterile operatic. Harmony is good but not required. As you can see, I give great weight to the words and how they are delivered, and I’m not a fan of “disposability” in my popular music: I’m looking for meaning that sticks with you, that improves rather than dissipates over time.

I’m on shaky ground, no doubt, by reducing musical quality to a single category, but I also find that it’s the only way to cover the tremendous diversity of non-vocal musical sound. For example, some would place a premium on “danceability” and would elevate “the beat” to a full-fledged dimension. I feel this does an injustice both to that music which doesn’t seek to just bang out a rhythm and that music which does; in other words, the “slow songs” which de-emphasize rhythm are legit for some purposes, and even something like hip-hop should be rated on how it takes the core rhythmic sound and augments it with other tones (being penalized if there’s nothing there but a beat).

My preference in musical sound is polyphonic, and that’s what I look for in production values, too: layers of sound that can be identified and enjoyed. I’m not one of those who believes that “less is more”, but I expect the additional layers to add something besides schmaltz. The muddy sound production of many garage bands is, for me, just adequate (2.0); I give it a passing mark because it does suit the music and vocals. OK, better production values might accentuate the weak vocal or musical qualities more, so they’re in a no-win situation; the solution is to have better music, lyrics, vocals, and production.

The final score is the sum of the quantities (5 minus the individual dimension rating) squared. This “Pythagorean” method, as opposed to just summing the values, gives greater emphasis on the dimensions which are seriously deficient, which I think is appropriate. The lower the score, the better: A perfect score would be four, which I’ll try to avoid giving out, as I would a disease. Anything below 10 is very high quality; three stars plus. Half A’s and half C’s would be about 25. Anything above 40 is lousy, the equivalent of one star (or none).

To put the method into effect, I’ll take a stab at one band from each of the decades from the ‘60’s through the current one. We will probably return to this method in the discussion and comparison of bands, albums, and individual songs in the future.

‘60’s—The Supremes: Vocals 4.0; Lyrics 2.5; Music 2.5; Production 3.3. Total: 16.4The ratings, and my judgment of the group, should be pretty self-explanatory. Sweet music, but shallow. “Love Child” is the only song of theirs I can think of that actually had something to say.

‘70’s—The Doors: Vocals 4.0; Lyrics 2.7; Music 3.5; Production 2.7. Total: 13.8I penalize them a bit for inconsistency in the quality of lyrics: there are some truly great ones (and some howlers), and for mediocrity in production.

‘80’s—Talking Heads (going for the later version here, Speaking in Tongues and thereafter): Vocals 3.5; Lyrics 3.0; Music 4.0; Production 3.7. Total: 8.9The question here is how much to hit them for the generally-indiscernible meaning of their lyrics. I do a bit here, but also feel that the lyrics do contribute to the overall effect, which I would describe as “energetic, optimistic, a bit naïve”.

‘90’s—Beck (Odelay/Mutations): Vocals 3.5; Lyrics 2.5; Music 3.7; Production 4.0. Total: 11.2Much like THeads, but I hit him harder for intentional obscurity in his lyrics; Beck seems often to be picking out his words just for their sounds; the effect is all over the place, and I’d say it’s pretty much hit-or-miss. Still, there are plenty good sounds; it’s fun.

‘00’s—Bright Eyes: Vocals 3.0; Lyrics 4.0; Music 3.5; Production 3.5. Total 9.5. I picked Oberst—and here I’m thinking clearly of “I’m Wide Awake: It’s Morning”, as opposed to the lesser (and non-vocal) “Ashes from a Digital Urn”, as representing a new trend, very difficult for me to evaluate. Some of the current artists—and I’m thinking also of Modest Mouse, Dresden Dolls—sound just awful the first time, but with repeated listenings, the quality emerges. Actually, I like that.

I saw that Dylan was quoted recently saying that production quality in the last 20 years has declined, and that he hasn’t heard anything good lately in that regard. I think he’s about one-third right; in my view, the quality from the major labels these days is consistently high (would be considered outstanding by the standards of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s), but not innovative. Perhaps he is only indirectly pointing out how great was the production quality on his recent albums with Daniel Lanois; we’re waiting to see about Dylan’s new one.

* With the Beatles, it will probably make most sense to consider separately the rating of the Lennon songs, the McCartney songs, and Anything Else. Only the production values would be the same, e.g. George Martin=top rating.

Common-sense Consumerism: Bathing
We address here the simple, but perennial question: shower vs. bath? The subjective rationalistic approach starts by thinking of the origin of these two modern contrivances. Naturalistically, the shower comes from bathing at a waterfall, whereas a bath comes from the experience of bathing in a warm spring pool. Both of these natural experiences are highly touted, for good reason. The question before us is partly which of the artificial versions gives a better imitation of the original, partly which of the original experiences is better, from the points of view of being invigorating and a good cleansing.

The drawback of most waterfalls is that the temperature is not optimal (warm water being better for cleansing); the drawback of a bathtub is that there is no continual refreshing of the pool of water (such as you may get in a natural pool with decent drainage).

The basic bathtub also lacks that refreshing feeling of a water massage that you can get from a shower or waterfall. So, the Jacuzzi innovation with its water jets is still a clear improvement (with the limitation of poor water replacement, which means you have to continue to bathe in the water that has just washed off your dirt, still remaining).

I haven't the data, but I'd have to think there is a clear conservation preference for the bath over the shower in terms of water consumption; the obverse side of not having to bathe in your own dirty water.

I think the 21st-century improvement in each will be the development of improved filtering systems which will allow shower water to be re-used (perhaps not for a shower, but for something else in the home), and which will allow Jacuzzi bath water to be recycled, cleaner, back into the tub.

We Existential Lottery Winners should marvel at how much better we have it than the olden days (when the spouse, or loyal servant, would dump the bucket of hot water into the tub every so often). Similarly, the low-flow shower head has combined with the shower massage attachment to improve greatly the shower experience--in terms of cleansing, invigoration, and water consumption.

I deliberately have not introduced the time factor into the equation, in the sense that a proper bath requires more time than a proper shower. The shower thus fits more practically into most people's daily lives, and this suggests there may be an opening for the development of the "Power Bath", which seems oxymoronic to us, but with the right apparatus could be a standard of excellence in the future.

Mid-Monthly 1:7--Special Insert on the 2006 Elections

I. Conventional Wisdom and The Big Picture

I have now received about 40 solicitations—no exaggeration--for money on behalf of Bob Casey, who’s running for Senate in Pennsylvania against the odious Rick Santorum. The roster of endorsers has been a Who’s Who of popular Democratic politicians and operatives, including James Carville, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and so on. All of them focus on the misdeeds of Santorum; none included so much as a photo or position paper or speech excerpt from Casey; all of them got tossed. Now, finally, I received one (from Barack Obama) that actually includes something from Bob Casey himself. This may move me to contribute to Casey, as his cause is no doubt just.

The main reason not to contribute is the reason I have chosen not to reply to the solicitations from the campaigns of Maria Cantwell, Tom Harkins, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, etc. These people are already going to win; they don’t need my money (OK, I’m not that sure about Cantwell, and I’m not too impressed with the job she’s done, either, but I figure that she should win).

Here is a fact that should shock: reviewing the Congressional Quarterly’s current assessment of the 468 Congressional races (435 House, 33 Senate), Santorum is the only incumbent currently favored to lose—further, his is the only seat CQ actually favors to change party (including vacated ones). They do have two Senate races rated as “No Favorite”, and a total of 13 House races in that category.

I’m sure that part of this is CQ being overly cautious: they don’t want to rub either of the party organizations the wrong way or be accused of partisanship. Much better to mislead, though I think they will get much more willing to call shots realistically once it gets close to Election Day. Then there won’t be time to dish opprobrium at them; the candidates will be much too busy dishing each other. Plenty of time still to cover their tracks and get more of the races correct. I can guarantee that, few as they may be, there will be more than one seat in the House or Senate changing party lines this year.

But still, I think there won’t be so many. The game has been rigged for incumbents, and for minimizing contested races, especially in the House.

I think there is a very strong case to argue that this Congress has been so poor, both ineffectual and ineffective—the efforts at “gay waving and flag marriage” amendments, and the immigration fiasco all being typical—that one should simply say “get the bums out” and urge ousting of incumbents of either party, everywhere. I’ve tried this argument once or twice on posting boards, and it works well. I think independents, in particular, would buy into it.

But my heart isn’t in it. One reason is that it is hypocrisy on my part: I consider my Representative, Tom Udall, to be one of the 10-15 best in Congress, and I would never consider advocating his removal. More to the point, it isn’t going to happen: the chances are zero that Tom loses, as with 80% or more of the other races.

So, the best I can say is, “When there’s doubt, err in the direction of throwing him out.” That’s for the non-partisan sites; elsewhere, it’s simply “Defeat Bushites”.

II. Excessively Specific 2006 Election Predictions

So, what we’ve got is something like NCAA Bracketology: go with the chalk (always the incumbent, or the incumbent’s party), even though you know there will be some upsets out there. Otherwise, you pick the wrong races and you get two errors. Of course, if you do that (as CQ has done), you end up with a lot of reasons to bore your readership.

The pundits have focused on the House contest for control, as opposed to the Senate (or the much-greater possibility that Democrats may end up reversing their 28-22 deficit in governorships). This sets up Conventional Wisdom’s The Day After Election Day Mainstream Media storyline, in which the public votes 53-47 for Democrats in the House, but the Republicans cling to a (reduced) majority. Along with the Smokescreen/Sideshow Saga of Sad, Lonely Lieberman (whether he wins or not).

I don’t have the staffers or the trustworthy data to look at 435 House races and make calls on them. Reading CQ’s recap of the 13 races they’ve rated even, though, I think every one of them should be considered a better-than-even chance for a change of party lines. A good example is Tom Delay’s seat (the only one currently rated even in the whole South): a well-financed, well-regarded former Democratic Congressman vs. a potential write-in movement (or two, or three) and a guy who can’t get himself off the ballot. Yes, the district favors Republican candidates, but actually not so much as you might think: DeLay didn’t feel he needed to gerrymander excessively to keep his district in the old days. So, I’ll apply that argument and give a first-order estimated result for the House: 12 Republican seats switch to the Dems, 1 the other way, a net gain of 11 for the Democrats, leaving them down 214-221.

For me, the contest for House control is symbolized by the one competitive race here in New Mexico, the Albuquerque-centered district currently represented by Republican Heather Wilson, the only woman veteran in the House. She has backed the Bushite GWOT, but has been a noticeable dissenter on a few occasions, which she has taken frequent opportunity to highlight as evidence of her “independence”. She has a tough opponent in state Attorney General Patricia Madrid, and her district’s demographics, party registration, and electoral history would all be classified as “Leans Democratic”. Her pro-military stance wins her support in a district with a lot of military personnel…

—whoa! Here is where the crux of the matter lies: apart from support for the general Bushite agenda, and more specifically Heather’s status as a card-carrying member of the Republican party caucus in good standing, what I think this particular election, and possibly the whole deal, may come down to is whether those in the military, and their friends and families, think that supporting a continuation of America’s role as referee in an Iraqi Civil War is really “supporting the troops”. Right now, though, I’d agree with CQ and say the seat “Leans Republican”, narrowly, that is. Meanwhile, Patricia Madrid is not my favorite Democratic politician, but because I know this race, and know how competitive it is, she will get my discretionary dollar.

Actually, though, my interest is much greater in the battle for control of the Senate. This is also an uphill battle, though for different reasons than the House: no gerrymandering is possible here, and as a result, a much greater percentage of the races are going to be seriously competitive. Democrats are well-organized, well-financed, with a lot of strong candidates, many of whom need have little fear of incumbents.

The problem for the Democrats is the math. The 55-45 deficit they now have means they need to pick up 6 seats out of 100, a bit higher percentage than the 15 out of 435 they need in the House. But remember, only a third of the seats are at risk this year. 40 Republicans, vs. only 27 Democrats, get to hold their seats without an election this year. Five more seats are in overwhelmingly Republican states in which the incumbents do not face strong challenges, so one would have to agree they are clearly safe: IN, MS, TX, UT, and WY. Democratic seats which look safe for re-election (including Bernie Sanders taking the place of Jeffords as “independent voting Democratic from Vermont”) number 12: CA, DE, HA, WI, MA, NM, NY, ND, WV, FL, MI, VT. That leaves 16 races that are somewhat or very competive, but the Dems would have to win 12 of them (to get to 51, and thus defeat Cheney’s potential tie-breaking vote). Nine of those 16 are held by Republicans seeking re-election, four by incumbent Democrats who are running to hold their seats (including Lieberman and New Jersey’s appointed Senator, Bob Menendez), and three vacated seats (replacing Democrats Sarbanes in MD, Dayton in MN, and the Bushite Frist in TN). Winning control for the Democrats thus means taking six (out of the 10) from the Republicans while losing none of the six they already hold.

Now, the “excessively specific” forecasting I promised: First, the bad news:
AZ—Jon Kyl, ME—Olympia Snowe, and VA—George Allen. Each has no more than about 10% chance of losing (Allen’s crypto-racist remarks will actually help him outside the suburbs, though they could cripple his national ambitions).

As with the Republican side, I see three contested Democratic seats as ultimately being high-probability wins for the incumbent’s party: WA—Cantwell (90%), NE—Ben Nelson has effectively positioned himself to capture the conservative Democrats and moderate independents (80%); and MD—Mfume (assuming he wins the primary) will restrain his strident rhetoric (80%).

Those six more holds make the score 48-42, leaving 10 for more detailed analysis.

OH—I see DeWine’s chance of losing as very promising here, due to the state’s voters making a silent rebellion against 2004, and with Secretary of State Blackwell focused on his own dim chances for Governor instead of fixing his party colleague’s race. 70% chance of Dem pickup.
RI—Lincoln Chafee is stuck in the wrong party, and he will pay this time. 80% chance of Dem pickup.
PA—It’s Bob Casey’s race to lose, and he won’t if he comes out of hiding and actually runs for his own seat, rather than just letting his proxies do it for him. 80% chance of Dem pickup.
MT—Burns has been trying to lose this one; he will shut up and try to let the state’s natural Republican majority carry him. In this case, though, the Democrats control the statehouse and the tide is going against him. 60% chance of Dem pickup.

I’m going to display a little optimism here: the odds I’ve quoted would suggest the Dems would win three of those four, but I’m going to predict all four will go Democratic, and safely enough that the races will be called by bedtime (12 a.m. eastern, 11 p.m. central). This will leave the score at 48-46 Bushites, change the key storyline to the battle for control of the Senate, and leave insomniacs biting their nails over the remaining six races:

CT—As I have elsewhere indicated, there’s a 90% chance the Dems will end up with the vote in the caucus, based on a 50% chance of a Lieberman win and a 20% chance he will turn traitor and either go with the Republican caucus or abstain in the battle for control (see “Worst-Case Scenario” below). The race may be decided by bedtime (the results will come relatively early), but if it goes Lieberman’s way everyone will still need to sweat it, in case his vote becomes a critical one.
NV—I don’t buy the conventional wisdom that Ensign’s seat is safe vs. Jimmy Carter’s son Jack. 40% chance of losing.
MN—I have to accept the argument that the Republicans have a strong candidate in Mark Kennedy, and that the state is no longer a sure thing for Democrats. 50-50.
NJ—I am really worried about this one: Jersey Democrats have the machine, but have used it badly, and Kean, Jr. is a formidable foe. 50-50.

If the Republicans pick up a seat in either MN or NJ, the game is over, unless Jack Carter pulls the upset in Nevada. My chosen scenario, though, calls for narrow party holds in both, a late-night loss for the Dems in Nevada, someone who is presumed a Democrat winning in CT, and a 49-49 count with two races still too close to call at 2 a.m. Eastern:

TN—Republican Corker will hold the early lead, but the Democratic machine officials controlling the Memphis precincts will stubbornly hold out their returns and see what size majority they need to get their man Harold Ford in. I give the Democrats a 60% chance of pulling out a victory which will be ripe for challenge and/or litigation.
MO—Similar situation to TN, but reversed. The Democrats have as their candidate a touted “strong candidate” in Claire McCaskill, but the rural vote for Bob “No” Talent will pull him alongside and then, finally, narrowly ahead. Missouri disappoints, once again. 40% chance for Democrats.

III. One More Red Nightmare

As I envision it, then, the Senate will end up 50-50, requiring no particular shenanigans to retain control for the Republicans (albeit shakily) and progressive activists will once again gain a moral victory while losing. If something (else) goes wrong, though, for the Bushites (such as losing Nevada or Missouri), they would still have two cards to play:
1) Stonewalling seating Harold Ford—if the Republicans can put the outcome into question, and throw this one into Recount City, they can block seating him indefinitely. Based on the 2000 election, who would doubt they could or would do so?
or
2) Worst-Case Scenario: If the Democrats somehow get to 51-49, with the 51st vote being Joe Lieberman, then some nasty backroom dealing could go down for his decisive vote. Bushite Ace of Spades Karl Rove (who claims to be “a personal friend”) will remind Joe of every slight he suffered at the hands of his erstwhile party, as well as all the nice things the Republicans have said about him in the general election campaign (not to mention withholding all support from their party’s putative candidate). This will not be enough, though.

So, what is the offer that Sour Joe will not be able to refuse? The talking heads’ talk of Lieberman as Defense Secretary in place of Rumsfeld earlier this year was just that, I think. Rumsfeld would veto that concept, as would Dubya, and would Lieberman really be stupid enough to give up a fresh six-year term for two years as Chief Scapegoat, followed by eternal damnation? I think not. Nor do I think that Richard Lugar, who is no fan of Bush’s Iraq war, would roll over and let Lieberman take the Chairmanship of Armed Services.

I think the bait would be an offer to head up a “non-partisan” committee to study the Iraq War, with the unofficial commission being to find a way to get American soldiers out of the firing line by November, 2008. I think he would find it his duty to take such an offer, perhaps abstaining from the vote on control of the Senate (which in certain circumstances, like Ford’s seating being blocked, might still leave it to Cheney’s tie-breaker). This would leave the Senate essentially deadlocked, the House nearly so, but then the Bushites have no legislative agenda left, anyway.

Not to be (too) cynical, but such a deal would leave a perfect scenario for John McCain to lead the nation in a 2008 election-year effort to re-focus GWOT on something other than Iraq’s problems, and possibly revive Rove’s dreams of a generation of Republican control of government. In this scenario, the public good that would be the end (or near-end) of American casualties in Iraq—something that would seem to benefit all--would come at the cost of any chance of putting the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule in the dock of Congressional inquiry with subpoena power—the Bushites’ current nightmare.

Frankly, at this point I don’t trust Lieberman: I missed on the question of whether he would do the dirty deed and run as an independent if he lost the primary, and I do hold it against him.

My thinking is also colored by my recent re-reading of Gore Vidal’s historical novel 1876. My objectives were to once again enjoy Vidal’s cutting wit and to re-visit just exactly how that election was stolen from popular vote winner Samuel Tilden—in the Electoral College, and beyond.

Superficially, 1876 parallels 2000: the Electoral College formally trumping the popular vote, and even some of the details, like the Supreme Court getting sucked in, the Democratic loser fighting nice while the Republicans played for keeps, and Florida (!) playing a key role (though of the three or four states stolen for eventual President Rutherford B. Hayes, Louisiana’s theft was the most egregious).
If one looks at the historical significance of 1876, though, there are a couple of gaps in the parallels which might fit better with this year’s program. First was that the key issue in the 1876 election was the sleaze and corruption of the administration of Republican Ulysses S. Grant: that was not present in 2000 (really, though some would argue Clinton’s sexual misconduct and impeachment would qualify), but the issue of Republican official corruption will certainly be present this year. Second was the deal which settled the election. Essentially, the Southern Democrats gave up their party’s Presidential candidate after the election in exchange for a promise to remove Federal troops from the remaining Southern states in which they were posted, in effect ending the Reconstruction period.

My best hope is not that Bushite control of the Federal government will be ended—I think that’s too farfetched. It is that another electoral mess, this time goring the elephant, will lead to a deal bringing about real improvements in processes and methods—public financing of federal elections, the elimination of the Electoral College, and national standards for voting machines and counting of votes.

The Great Connecticut Senate Circus

I’ve just gotten off the “move-on.org” forum, wading through dozens of pro- and anti-Lieberman posts on the supposed topic of “What are the most important goals for move-on to pursue over the next four years.” That and dozens more of pro- and anti-Israel postings (mostly the latter). Move-on’s forum has a big problem, that the forum’s structure encourages people to talk past each other and pay no attention to previous postings, resulting in tens of thousands of postings that hardly anyone sees, but that is beside the point.

The point is that move-on, and the entire political focus of the moment, is missing the big picture when it comes to this election. It may be important to take Lieberman out, it may be important that Lamont would be a better senator, but it is not nearly the most important election in 2006.

The key to the Republican power structure supporting TBMR (the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule) is that party’s control of both houses of Congress. This has prevented any real consideration of the Iraq war, of Bushite abuses of power, of the continued defenceless status of the electoral system to abuse, the continuation of the anti-democratic Electoral College, the continued ignoring of global warming, the environment, the unbalanced tax system, etc.

The Connecticut Senate race is one of those that has virtually no bearing on the Republican control of Congress. There is, at most, about a 10% chance that the Democratic seat in Connecticut (currently rated as “safe Democratic” by Congressional Quarterly) could escape the Democratic caucus in the next Congress (the 50% chance Lieberman could win as an independent, times the 20% chance that the race will be so ugly that Joe will decline to join the Democratic caucus).

I disagree also with the notion that Karl Rove loves this race: his Republican candidate has 0% chance of winning a seat. If there were any chance, that would be important; however, all reasonable observers agree that either Lamont or Lieberman would still win the race, even if Lieberman goes through with the race as an independent and thus cuts into Lamont’s vote.

If Rove really thinks that this race will give him the opportunity to tag the national Democrats as extremists, he’s wrong. But I don’t think he will make that mistake. Both the RNC and the DNC should hold their funds out of this race and focus on those where there is a real competition between a Republican and a Democrat. And I think both parties are smart enough to see this. This race, and the attention given to it, are a smokescreen.